What do you think the Mark of the Beast is?? And what is sin about it?

[throughfiierytrial]

THANKS be to Yahweh TODAY and FOREVER!

After your posting that someone could BUY faith ! ! !
ewq was right >>

How very Christian of you...shows where your heart and mind and soul are at.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Shalom to all who love Jesus, who are called according to Yahweh's Purpose.

 

[Tone]

Okay, if I'm following the thread correctly, it seems that you guys are arguing about whether or not the beast stops people who don't have the mark from buying and selling. I think the obvious answer is, of course, because we are currently buying and selling. So we either have the mark right now or, if it happens in the near future, all of commerce has to stop and reset to the new beast econony.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Okay, if I'm following the thread correctly, it seems that you guys are arguing about whether or not the beast stops people who don't have the mark from buying and selling. I think the obvious answer is, of course, because we are currently buying and selling. So we either have the mark right now or, if it happens in the near future, all of commerce has to stop and reset to the new beast econony.

It is being made into that, little by little, line upon line, as more places accept it and utilize it. Not all at once.

 

[Tone]

It is being made into that, little by little, line upon line, as more places accept it and utilize it. Not all at once.

I'm gonna repeat what I just posted on another thread:

"Yeah, the powers that be do not like those who live without a license. Pretty soon we may have to have a license just to buy and sell..."

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

I think that while we should be watchful, we should refrain from calling anything the mark as an absolute because if you focus on one thing being the mark, it may distract you from what it *truly* is.
That being said, there are things right now that very well could be the mark in a physical sense, however, it could be something symbolic like an anti-baptism and or anti-Chrismation.
My point is we should be watchful but not distracted.

The sin regarding *why* taking it is not so much important to me as the consequence of taking it.

 

[woobadooba]

I think that while we should be watchful, we should refrain from calling anything the mark as an absolute because if you focus on one thing being the mark, it may distract you from what it *truly* is.

I agree. We don't know what it is at this time. When the time comes, God will let us know it. The reason many if not most SDAs are not willing to look at it in this way is because of Ellen White's writings on the subject, which they regard as inspired as Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I think that while we should be watchful, we should refrain from calling anything the mark as an absolute because if you focus on one thing being the mark, it may distract you from what it *truly* is.

It looks like you have just argued against saying what it is because then you will oppose what it is.

Does God warn us of a future event so that we will be forewarned only to hide the event from us?

In Noah's day it was specific.

In John the baptizer's day it was a specific warning.

In Matthew 23 Christ gives the Jews a specific warning.

That being said, there are things right now that very well could be the mark in a physical sense, however, it could be something symbolic like an anti-baptism and or anti-Chrismation.
My point is we should be watchful but not distracted.

A focus on the warnings that we are given by Christ is not what I would call a distraction.

The sin regarding *why* taking it is not so much important to me as the consequence of taking it.

The problem with that is that it is very unlikely that some future scenario will arise that is of the form "here is the mark of the beast - we would like you to accept this in your forehead or your hand... forget why we are doing it -- we just need you to accept it".

Rev 13 gives us a "clue" as to its identity precisely because it will not come with "mark of beast goes here" documentation and diagrams.

 

[woobadooba]

It looks like you have just argued against saying what it is because then you will oppose what it is.

Does God warn us of a future event so that we will be forewarned only to hide the event from us?

Well, then, what is it? Show us from the Bible (not Ellen White's writings) what the mark of the beast is. If you can't do that, then keep silent!

You have no business telling people they are wrong about something when you don't know for certain you got it right.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

It looks like you have just argued against saying what it is because then you will oppose what it is.

Does God warn us of a future event so that we will be forewarned only to hide the event from us?

In Noah's day it was specific.

In John the baptizer's day it was a specific warning.

In Matthew 23 Christ gives the Jews a specific warning.




A focus on the warnings that we are given by Christ is not what I would call a distraction.



The problem with that is that it is very unlikely that some future scenario will arise that is of the form "here is the mark of the beast - we would like you to accept this in your forehead or your hand... forget why we are doing it -- we just need you to accept it".

Rev 13 gives us a "clue" as to its identity precisely because it will not come with "mark of beast goes here" documentation and diagrams.

All I was saying is anything forced onto the world’s entire population while killing people who will not take it, no matter what it is, is probably the mark.
Not to mention, the Antichrist must rise first before the mark takes place.

 

[tz620q]

Many names/titles could add up to 666. The fact that one such title does add up to it - is not enough "by itself" to identify it as the beast of Rev 13.

BTW, 666 in Roman numerals is DCLXVI. --- true that is the total. But it is not only way to get numbers that add up to 666

Here is another:
E = no value
L = 50
L = 50
E = no value
N = no value
--------
100

G = no value
O = no value
U = V = 5
L = 50
D = 500
--------
555

W = V V = 5+5 = 10
H= no value
I = 1
T = no value
E = no value
-------
11

100 + 555 + 11 = 666
I find the SDA claims for Vicarius Filii Dei to be rather absurd. Just as my inference that Ellen Gould White is the Anti-Christ is absurd.

 

[Tone]

From:

Hamsa - Wikipedia

"At the Mimouna, a North African Jewish celebration held after Passover, tables are laid with various symbols of luck and fertility, with an emphasis on the number "5", such as five pieces of gold jewelry or five beans arranged on a leaf of pastry. The repetition of the number five is associated with the hamsa amulet.[33]
In the Old Testament Exodus 3:16 God addresses Moses with the words 'eyseh asher eyseh' translated in King James version of The Bible as 'I AM THAT I AM'. In Hebrew this name is spelt Aleph Heh Yod Heh, however God's name spoken of in the third person is Yod Heh Vav Heh. Hence the words Jehovah, Joshua, Jesus and Yahweh all derive from God's self-proclaimed biblical name referred to in the third person. The pictographic associations of the Hebrew language designate the Aleph as a symbol similar to the mathematical percentage sign, in which the infinite is reflected in the finite, with the reflective capacity represented by a diagonal line also signified by Vav – the number five of five fingered hand. Meanwhile the letter Heh denotes the concept of 'Behold' and is symbolically associated with the eye, hence the name Yahweh can be pictographically represented as 'Behold the hand, behold the nail', since Yod is a nail or flower. This linguistic association corresponds with the story of Christ's crucifixion in Christianity and the stigmata of the hands, but also relates to the Hamsa hand and hand of Fatima, since the integration of the pictographic elements of the name amount to a symbol of a hand with a flowering eye at its centre, symbolic of God. This symbol therefore belongs to three of the world's major religions, as well as having counterparts in Buddhism and Hinduism. It is suggestive of touch as a kind of sight that transcends appearance, and hold promise as an emblem for the unification of world religion"

Think about it...the right hand...and they're playing with His Name.

Read the whole article folks.

*Oh yeah, and the word has the MS root I've been talking about (On to something?). Notice Trump has been talking alot about MS too...just saying.

**Click on the hamsa link to see the image.

***"It is suggestive of touch as a kind of sight that transcends appearance, and hold promise as an emblem for theunification of world religion."

 

[BobRyan]

Well, then, what is it? Show us from the Bible (not Ellen White's writings) what the mark of the beast is. If you can't do that, then keep silent!

You have no business <obligatory rant deleted here>...

As it turns out - this is my thread and the OP specifically asks those that respond to my thread to tell us what they think the mark of the beast is and what about it is a sin.

You have done neither in that post.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is another:
E = no value
L = 50
L = 50
E = no value
N = no value
--------
100
.

So then your proposel is that John wanted his readers to use English?? Seriously?

Or are you saying that english is a latin language (instead of Germanic) and it is using roman numerals for letters?

In any case - thanks for your guess at that point.

 

[woobadooba]

As it turns out - this is my thread and the OP specifically asks those that respond to my thread to tell us what they think the mark of the beast is and what about it is a sin.

You have done neither in that post.

Then why do you argue with people if you are only interested in hearing their view?

It seems you are not being sincere.

 

[tz620q]

So then your proposel is that John wanted his readers to use English?? Seriously?

Or are you saying that english is a latin language (instead of Germanic) and it is using roman numerals for letters?

In any case - thanks for your guess at that point.

OK, Bob, I will bite. You have proposed Vicarius Filli Dei as one solution. Let's be upfront here and tell us why you have this opinion and what makes you think this is a valid option.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

It looks like you have just argued against saying what it is because then you will oppose what it is.

How so?

 

[Tone]

Hamas is an acronym of the Arabicphrase حركة المقاومة الاسلامية or Harakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement". The Arabic word 'hamas' (حماس) means "courage" or "zeal".[53] The Hamas covenant interprets its name to mean "strength and bravery".

It is also an anagram for hamsa....just saying...Hamsa - Wikipedia

 

[BobRyan]

I think that while we should be watchful, we should refrain from calling anything the mark as an absolute because if you focus on one thing being the mark, it may distract you from what it *truly* is.

It looks like you have just argued against saying what it is because then you will oppose what it is.

Does God warn us of a future event so that we will be forewarned only to hide the event from us?

In Noah's day it was specific.

In John the baptizer's day it was a specific warning.

In Matthew 23 Christ gives the Jews a specific warning.

That being said, there are things right now that very well could be the mark in a physical sense, however, it could be something symbolic like an anti-baptism and or anti-Chrismation.
My point is we should be watchful but not distracted.

A focus on the warnings that we are given by Christ is not what I would call a distraction.

The sin regarding *why* taking it is not so much important to me as the consequence of taking it.

The problem with that is that it is very unlikely that some future scenario will arise that is of the form "here is the mark of the beast - we would like you to accept this in your forehead or your hand... forget why we are doing it -- we just need you to accept it".

Rev 13 gives us a "clue" as to its identity precisely because it will not come with "mark of beast goes here" documentation and diagrams.

How so?

you appear to have said that we should not try to figure out what the mark is - because in so doing we might miss what it really is.

Did I misunderstand your point?

 

[BobRyan]

OK, Bob, I will bite. You have proposed Vicarius Filli Dei as one solution. Let's be upfront here and tell us why you have this opinion and what makes you think this is a valid option.

1. It is Latin a this is the language of the world empire under which John is writing in Rev 13.
2. The system of "number of the name" was something already in use at the time of John - so his readers would have understand what was being referenced. The practice of adding up the letters and using the Roman numerals that doubled as letters to get to "the number of the name".

I suggest that the Vicarius Filii Dei title is one such name that could add up to the required total. There are of course others.